CommenTerry

Ten Things You Need Not Worry About

I am constantly amazed by some of the things that otherwise intelligent people often worry about. Some of it is stuff that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in you-know-where of ever happening. Therefore, I would like to (hopefully) set some people’s minds at ease about a few of them. I am here to tell you that the following ten things will never happen, despite many a lost nights’ sleep over them on the part of some individuals:

1) A major U.S. city being hit by an intercontinental ballistic missile bearing a nuclear warhead. Other types of nuclear disasters are possible, but this ain’t gonna happen. We won’t be seeing any mushroom clouds over any part of the U.S. That’s because any potential perpetrator knows that such action would lead to it being wiped off the face of the earth.

2) The black helicopters coming to get us. Stuff like that only happens in novels and movies.

3) The end of winter, spring, summer, and fall as we know them. While I do believe in the general concepts of global warming and climate change, a transformation of this magnitude will never occur as long as the earth exists. My source: God Himself – He says so in His Word.

4) The U.S. government taking everyone’s guns. This is only a figment of the imagination of the deeply paranoid (and a convenient fundraising tool for the NRA). The right of individual Americans to bear arms is settled constitutional law, so there's nothing President Obama or any future liberal president could do about it, even if he wanted to.

5) Government completely taking over the U.S. healthcare system. Not gonna happen. Yes, there will eventually be healthcare reform that will include some government involvement. However, the American healthcare colossus is much too large and complicated to be processed through a single payer system.

6) One world government. Good grief! The folks in Europe can’t even make the EU work properly. How is some entity (supposedly originating from that continent) going to govern the entire world? And can you imagine radical followers of Islam, for example, submitting to some other type of authority? For crying out loud, their own governments can’t even manage them now. Ask the president of Pakistan. I also can’t see any U.S. rednecks allowing someone from Europe to boss them around.

7) Israel being wiped off the face of the earth. Such an occurrence only exists in the genocidal fantasies of lunatics like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Fortunately, he and everyone else who entertains such ambitions will never see them come to pass. The Israelites are God’s chosen people and He would therefore never allow them to be completely annihilated.

8) The splintering of the United States. While the U.S. will likely not add any additional states, it won’t lose any either. Despite our regional and individual differences, never again will any state or group of states even attempt to secede, no matter what may come. For one thing, the Civil War was too painful of a lesson from history to risk repeating. For the other, any given state would have too much to lose by splitting off from the union.

9) An extraterrestrial invasion. Even if there is intelligent life on other planets, I doubt that those creatures would have any interest in inheriting any of our problems and catching any of our diseases. They probably have enough of their own to deal with already.

10) The “big one” hitting the west coast of the U.S.  While it’s as interesting as it is scary to speculate about, it just doesn’t seem like something that could really happen. Excuse me, but I can’t envision a huge chunk of the America’s Pacific coast just disappearing into the ocean. I’m well aware of the fact that some seismologists have been warning about the possibility of a catastrophic earthquake in that region for years, but I can’t help thinking that someone is exaggerating here. I base my reasoning on similar exaggerations that I’ve heard in the past. For example, remember how New Orleans was “destroyed” by hurricane Katrina? 

Obviously, some people will continue to worry about the above items. But, as I have pointed out, there is absolutely no need to. Like one of my former bosses used to say, “I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.”

Random Rants and Raves #147

To calculate the number of days between two calendar dates that are exactly one month apart, use the number of days in the first month. For example, the number of days between March 4 and April 4 is 31, since March has 31 days. The number of days between April 4 and May 4 is 30, since April has 30 days. The number of days in the second month is irrelevant.        

---

Does Garrison Keillor look like Elton John or what?

---

Mistaken definition of expectorant: When you’re about to have a baby.

---

Some people would vote for a toad if it were the nominee of their favorite political party.

---

I trust my eyes for things I can see. I trust my ears for the things I can hear. I trust my mind for things I can understand. But I trust God for everything else.

---

Have you noticed that almost any automated phone system will claim that it has recently changed?

---

My lot in life is to work hard, spend lots of money, and not get much for it.

---

A day without the Internet is like a day without sunshine.

Why I Would Never Join a Health Club

Even if I knew my life depended on it, I would never join a health club. I would just go ahead and die, rather than suffer such humiliation. There’s no way I would exercise in front of other people, as most of them are probably better at it and might be judgmental of me. And, somehow, I don’t think that my own private exercise room would be included in a health club membership. If there is indeed a health club that would offer such a luxury, I doubt that I could afford the rates anyway.

Some TV commercials that a popular chain of health clubs is currently running give me the creeps. They all begin with a person explaining why he or she joined that particular health club. No real problem there, but it’s the ending that bothers me. The person in question is then shown jumping onto some kind of exercise apparatus and then using it during the last few seconds of those ads. How can they let themselves be seen doing that on national TV? I wouldn’t be willing to do that any more than I would allow TV cameras into my bathroom while I’m taking a shower.

I addition, I suspect that many of those who frequent health clubs are semi-professional exercisers – people who have avidly and enthusiastically been exercising for most of their lives. I would look too much like a Johnny-come-lately to the practice or perhaps someone who is just following after the latest trend. I do not follow the crowd, even when I know they are doing something that would be good for me. And I can’t have anyone thinking I take my cue from others or ever allow them to convince me of anything.

Separation of Church and Public Broadcasting?

I recently learned that PBS is now forbidding its affiliates from carrying any kind of religious programming whatsoever. This is outrageous! The commercial networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC have utilized a long-standing policy against carrying religious programs. However, they do not try to prevent their affiliates from carrying such programs. In fact, most local stations, whether independent or affiliated with a major network, carry some religious programming, especially on Sunday mornings.

Why then does PBS feel the need to bully its affiliates in such a way? Are they imagining some constitutional principle that demands separation of church and public broadcasting? I don’t know, but this kind of attempted censorship should scare anyone, whether they are religious or not. Although it does get government funds, PBS relies heavily on contributions from corporations and individuals. I believe it’s now time for some of them to begin re-thinking those donations until PBS comes to its senses.

Why Say New York "Football" Giants?

I’m curious as to why people continue to refer to New York’s NFC East franchise as the New York “Football” Giants? Why not simply call them the New York Giants? There was once a need for this kind of disambiguation. That’s because the there was also a Major League Baseball team called the New York Giants.

However, in 1957, the New York “Baseball” Giants moved to San Francisco. That removed the necessity to distinguish between the football and baseball Giants. Yet people continue say New York “Football” Giants. Are they trying to be funny? Or perhaps acting like wise guys? Maybe they just don’t want to give up a tradition that began long ago.

However, it’s interesting that I never hear anyone say Colorado “Baseball” Rockies or St. Louis “Baseball” Cardinals, for example. There was once an NHL franchise called the Colorado Rockies and an NFL franchise called the St. Louis Cardinals. That is, until the NHL’s Rockies moved to New Jersey in 1982 to become the New Jersey Devils, and the NFL’s Cardinals moved to Phoenix in 1988 to become the Phoenix Cardinals and later the Arizona Cardinals.

Yes, for some reason or another, people don’t emphasize the fact that the Colorado Rockies and St. Louis Cardinals are baseball teams, even though the need to do so disappeared much more recently that the necessity to say New York “Football” Giants. Go figure!

Is it Time to Excommunicate Northern Virginia?

Has the time come for the rest of the Commonwealth to excommunicate Northern Virginia? Would it be a good idea for lawmakers in Richmond to just lop off everything north of Fredericksburg? Actually, divorce would probably be a better term than excommunicate, as I was intentionally taking liberties with that word in order to have a catchy title.

Anyway, such a move could have benefits for both sides. They couldn't be more different politically. Northern Virginia voters tend to be more libertarian on social issues and more liberal/progressive on economic issues, while favoring Democrats. Downstate voters, on the other hand, tend to be more conservative on social issues and more libertarian on economic issues, while favoring Republicans. They could part company amicably with each region removing itself from being a roadblock to the other's political agenda. I haven't studied the economics of such a breakup, but I'm sure there would be negative economic ramifications for one side or the other, or perhaps both, but they could likely be worked out with adjustments made over time.

A split wouldn't be without precedent. West Virginia broke away in 1860's due to irreconcilable differences over how to align during the Civil War, which led to West Virginia staying in the Union, while the remainder of Virginia joined the Confederacy. Since the end of that war, the states have lived side-by-side in peace, with the breakup having ultimately been beneficial to the citizens of both states.

Resist the Temptation to Overmedicate

With so many all-in-one cold and flu remedies on the market today, there is a real temptation to overmedicate. Most healthcare professionals agree that this is a temptation that should be resisted. Many over-the-counter medications combine treatments for multiple symptoms all in one pill. For example, one pill may treat a runny nose, cough, congestion, sore throat, fever, head ache, and body aches. In most cases, all of these symptoms are not present at the same time. By taking pills like that, people are treating symptoms they don't have.

While it might not be so economical, it's better to use different treatments for different symptoms. For example, use a cough and cold pill for a runny nose, sore throat, and coughing; a decongestant for congestion; a pain reliever for head ache and body aches; and a fever reducer for fever. Most pain relievers, such as acetaminophen, will also reduce fever and that's okay. Bottom line, it's just not a good idea to take medicine that not's needed, no matter how cost-effective multi-symptom medications might seem.

Why Not Allow Private Unemployment Insurance?

I’ve never understood why Americans aren’t allowed to buy private unemployment insurance policies. Public unemployment insurance is about to bankrupt many states, thanks to the recent recession. Much of this could have been avoided if workers had the option to buy private unemployment insurance, either directly or through their employers.

Speaking of employers, some of their costs of keeping people employed would be reduced if they didn’t have to pay into the public unemployment insurance coffers. That would likely allow them to hire more workers, which would in turn make such private insurance less costly. That’s because allowing employers to use more of their resources to hire additional workers would reduce the risk that any given worker would be unemployed at any given time.

To me, this would seem like a win-win situation all around. But don't look for it to become a reality anytime soon. It seems that our nanny-state form of government just can't relinquish control and allow the private sector to resolve its own matters.

Random Rants and Raves #146

Never fight any battle unless and until it absolutely has to be fought.        

---

I like to develop good habits because I don’t want to think any more than have to.

---

Question: What does a vice president really need to know?

Answer: The president’s pulse, blood pressure, and temperature!

---

Murphy’s law of proofreading: There will be at least one typo in any part of a document that you fail to proofread.

---

When a network TV show is moved to Friday or Saturday night, that generally signals the beginning of the end for that show.

---

I’m not surprised that Bear Stearns recently went under. Now, had its name had been Bull Stearns, that would have been more of shocker!

---

I will often intentionally allow some of the non-perishable products in my home to become scarce. That way I am forced to conserve them until my next trip to the grocery store. Like most anyone else, I will use more of anything that I have in great supply.

---

Many people toss the word “truth” around as a euphemism for “my ideology.”

Scary Vigilante Justice

It troubles me that many otherwise decent and well-meaning people seem to favor a little vigilante justice under certain circumstances. But it scares the heck out of me when I come across an extremely intelligent and well-educated person who feels this way. A case in point was a recent guest on Bill O’Reilly’s popular primetime show on the Fox News Channel. Here we had a gentleman with a Ph.D. who seemed to approve of the brutal beating of a fleeing rape suspect by an angry mob.

To his credit, O’Reilly confronted this man about his apparent sanctioning of vigilante-style activity. Even O’Reilly, a stern law-and-order advocate, can see that tolerating any kind of vigilantism is a slippery slope toward a dangerous system of justice – one in which people are no longer presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In fact, when O’Reilly raised that very concern, his guest merely blew it off by stating that he “knew” the alleged rapist was guilty of raping several women and a child, and therefore his attackers had every right to chase him down and beat him with a stick even though he was unarmed.

Yeah, no need to waste time and money on a trial when you know for sure someone is guilty. Just round up a posse to take them out somewhere and beat the crap out of them, or even kill them if their crime is serious enough. If that kind of mentality doesn’t scare you, then maybe you should consider moving to China, Iran, or North Korea.

But even some people who would never go along with the forfeiture of lawful trials in favor of street vigilantism still seem to be okay with a different type of vigilante justice – one performed by prison inmates. A disturbingly large number of people apparently wink at the notion of prison inmates brutalizing certain types of criminals.

This is unacceptable. Just as the courts must determine guilt, they must also be the sole determiners of how a guilty person’s punishment will be meted out. When it is decided on and/or applied by anyone else, the result is nothing more than another form of dangerous vigilantism.